Unfortunately, the quotation given from YouCat 421 gives further cause for concern. It reads:
421 Why are all methods of preventing the conception of a child not equally good?Both the question and the answer fly in the face of everything that loyal Catholics have done to promote the teaching of Humanae Vitae.
The Church recommends the refined methods of self-observation and natural family planning (NFP) as methods of deliberately regulating conception. These are in keeping with the dignity of man and woman; they respect the innate laws of the female body; they demand mutual affection and consideration and therefore are a school of love. [2370–2372, 2399]
The Church does not say that contraception and natural family planning are "not equally good." It teaches that contraception is a sin (not a lesser good), while NFP may be a morally acceptable means of limiting the size of a family if there are serious reasons for doing so.
The Church does not "recommend" NFP as though artificial contraception were a less perfect option. Nor, in fact does it consider NFP and contraception to be the same kind of moral action. This is one of the basic elements of apologetics in support of the moral teaching of the Church: contraception is definitively closed to the gift of new life, while NFP recognises that new life may be less likely at certain times.
The composers of YouCat have made a classic mistake in their attempt to appeal to young people. A question and answer such as 421 above, looks like an attempt to put things diplomatically: to water down the teaching of the Church in case it is too difficult.
In fact, the young people who are still willing to listen to the Church want clear, unambiguous answers. On sexual ethics, they may fail to live the natural law as clarified by the Catholic Church but they will be willing to repent and come back to Christ in humility. As a priest working in perhaps the most secular corner of the planet, I am only too well aware of the import of the modern translation of Psalm 118 "How shall the young remain sinless?" The answer is "by obeying your law", not by waffling around in timid appeasement. (As I highlighted the other day, Waffle should only be served with syrup.) The last thing young people need is for priests to fudge what are crucial questions for their everyday lives.
YouCat has already earned the nickname LolCat. If the stuff on contraception is so muddled, what will it be like in other areas of theology? I await the published edition (released today) with some trepidation.
33 comments:
You are spot on Father. Thank you for preaching the Gospel so clearly. As a young man I can tell you that this kind of strong teaching is very helpful in the fight against temptation.
"It teaches that contraception is a sin (not a lesser good), while NFP may be a morally acceptable means of limiting the size of a family if there are serious reasons for doing so."
One of the problems is that "serious reasons" are now thought to be not being able to afford the latest mobile phone, not being able to purchase a new car and having to give up holidays abroad.
The more the teachings are getting lost or muddied, the more it gives opportunity for the excuses to become more and more futile.
"You Cat" is itself a tremendously silly and embarrassing name. Even with this the authors are trying to appeal to young people in a cheap way that simply doesn't work. Schoenborn and co. are living in a past age.
This why the Vatican needs to read Catholic blogs (as it does - some of them, at least). If this new catechism is fudging things like this it will be a disaster. I have sent for a copy, but it looks as though a red pencil is needed - and then. perhaps, a handy dustbin
Father:
Clear. Thanks.
"In fact, the young people who are still willing to listen to the Church want clear, unambiguous answers."
Exactly! I'm a young man close to get married and I completely agree.
I guess each act has to be separately judged, and that's why it is not possible to make a complete list telling "this is a sin" and "this is not". But we want and need clear answers, and by clear I mean "real life" cases in "our" language.
"The dignity of man" sounds great, but many of us have found something that seemed to be "good" is not because it goes against that dignity.
I think, some "nasty" words won't hurt, if they are used to make things clear enough.
It appears to have got itself into a bind by referring to ways of "preventing conception". To my way of thinking, natural family planning is a way of *avoiding* conception; contraception is a way of preventing it. The difference is that natural family planning does not involve *doing* anything but rather *not doing* something: choosing not to have intercourse at a particular time. The latter does not seem morally contraversial.
Assuming the good, I would suggest that it is a clumsy way of trying to make the distinction between contrception of birth control. Read in this way the paragraph isn't problematic. However, it is poorly worded.
St - Rorate Caeli have suggested that it be nicknamed Lolcat.
Thankyou for pointing this out, Father. To some of the commenters I would say, the point is that the Church has never taught that married couples should "avoid conception" - nor should they be seeking to "control births" except in the gravest circumstances. Unfortunately many Priests and "orthodox" Catholics seem to think that NFP simply MUST be incorporated into every Catholic marriage, but this is not so. In some ways the Theology of the Body stuff seems to ignore that the primary ends of marriage is to procreate. If any young people are about to get married, or want clear Church teaching on this matter they would do well to read Msgr Cormac Burke's booklet on marriage -
One of the reasons I converted was the straight-forward no-nonsense answers I got. Making the church bend to modern "sensitivities" or trying to make her "relavant" is not the answer. The Catholic identity, moral compass, Tradition, as well as the Real Presence in the Eucharist are what attract people to the Church--not trying to be more like Protestants.
After reading your comments, I will not be a Youcat for my teens. Thank you.
Excellent post Father.
I just read "The corrected question now reads in Italian "Can a Christian couple turn to methods that regulate fertility?""
(see: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1101477.htm)
This is not good. You don't "regulate fertility". You regulate sexual activity (to infertile times).
It is a well-know fact that birth control pills stabilize and regulate a woman's menses as well as rendering the woman infertile.
A woman with irregular menses might take "the pill" to become more regular but she would thereby also be rendered infertile.
With this kind of language people would say they want to regulate one's "periods" knowing that at the same time they would be always infertile.
Thank you for posting this, Father. Some time ago, when I first heard of the "YouCat" project I wrote to the Ignatius Press blog to express my thoughts on the matter. I said that it seemed to me that YouCat was an attempt to dumb down the teachings of the Church and, in effect, operated from the erroneous position that young Catholics could not comprehend the strong truths of the Faith. I said that the youth needed meat, and not gruel. My comments were never published there; I thank you for publishing them here.
YouCat is a joke, if you read any of the samples it is quite clear that it has watered down the already wet ccc.
The 'contraception' article hides a condemnation of artificial contraception in the small print rather than saying anything outright, they are ashamed of the truth and Our Blessed Lord will be ashamed of them on the Last Day.
Fr. Tim,
Maybe "DutchCat" would be a better nickname...
I find this really sad. I have been enthusiastic about YouCat, as I think the idea (and what I have seen in the previews) fills a needed hole between the full Cathechism and a simpler presentation - not only for young people but for a lot of people who would soon find themselves overwhelmed by the level of language and wealth of information in the full Catechism. But this is really very worrying. It is, as has been pointed out, a moral category mistake. Thanks for the alert. It won't stop me buying or using or recommending the Catechism, but it does show that it has to be recommended which some caution. Which, as I said, makes me sad.
Thanks for the alert. It won't stop me buying or using or recommending the Catechism, but it does show that it has to be recommended which some caution. Which, as I said, makes me sad.
If something is a danger to your faith, why on earth would you invest your money in it? Some msiplaced sense of loayalty?
My biggest worry is that Ignatius Press seemed to have no problem with English translation of Questions 420/21, as they quoted them in full, as if they were definitive:
http://tinyurl.com/3dr2jzx
What on earth's happening at Ignatius Press? It seems as if TAN Books and Sophia Press (because they republish pre-Vatican II books, on the whole) are about the only Catholic publishers left...
Whats wrong with the Baltimore Catechism and the Roman Catechism of Trent?
All of these subjects are broached in these works and anyone can understand them with the proper teacher.
Youcat!
What poppycock!
We agree with some points of this article, please come to our web and if you agree with us give us support. Thank You !
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Por-qu%C3%A9-no-YouCat-gratis-en-Internet-Why-not-YouCat-free-online-/103240083090668?sk=app_156218351098324
I find your comments sad and totally misrepresent the YOUCAT. If you would have quoted the whoe text you would have seen that the YouCat denounces Contraception:421 "On the other hand the Church rejects all artificial means of contraception-namely".. and goes on to name them all. It is clear and concise.
There are two ways to come at a problem, negatively or positively, I see the YOUCAT as a truly positive response to this difficult moral question in our day and age. It states it is wrong, but gives you the positive reasons for it being wrong.
I think your Blog is unforutnate. It does not quote the full text, which does condemn Contraception. It is very clear. Please read the full text and you will be informed clearly. this is a great book and a gift from Christ through His church to the Youth Of the World. I plan on using this in my Youth Ministry and promotion with my own children.
Yes, I'm aware that the text goes on to "clarify" or essentially contradict what is in the headline answer. I think that the traditional principle applies to the presentation of doctrine in a catechism:
bonum ex integra causa malum ex quocumque defectu
(An action is good when good in every respect; it is wrong when wrong in any respect.)
What do you think about its teaching on masturbation?
Question 409 (Page 222)
Is Masturbation an offense against love?
Masturbation is an offense against love, because it makes the excitement of sexual pleasure an end in itself and uncouples it from the holistic unfolding of love between a man and a women. That is why “sex with yourself” is a contradiction in terms.
Sorry, I didn't quote the whole passage:
Question 409 (Page 222)
Is Masturbation an offense against love?
Masturbation is an offense against love, because it makes the excitement of sexual pleasure an end in itself and uncouples it from the holistic unfolding of love between a man and a woman. That is why “sex with yourself” is a contradiction in terms.
The Church does not demonize masturbation, but she warns against trivializing it. In fact many young people and adults are in danger of becoming isolated in their consumption of lewd pictures, films, and Internet services instead of finding love in a personal relationship. Loneliness can lead to a blind alley in which masturbation becomes an addiction. Living by the motto ‘“For sex I do not need anyone; i will have it myself, however and whenever I need it” makes nobody happy.
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that masturbation, an "unnatural vice" which is a species of lust in same category as bestiality and sodomy, "by procuring pollution [i.e., ejaculation apart from intercourse], without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure [...] pertains to the sin of 'uncleanness' which some call 'effeminacy' [Latin: mollitiem, lit. 'softness, unmanliness']." [Summa Theologica IIª-IIae, q. 154 a. 11 co. (in Latin)]
The Catechism of the Catholic Church 2352. calls masturbation a "gravely disordered action."
Read Persona Humana section IX for a perfect refutation of the YouCat heresy regarding masturbation. It explicitly refutes how masturbation is not wrong because it is closed in one oneself; it is an intrinsically disordered act.
Alan - the personalist approach to sexual sins doesn't really motivate anyone. A young man tempted by pornography is not going to stop because of a worry about being closed in on himself. But he might if he considers his eternal salvation.
There is a lot of similar and equally ineffective talk about the morality of contraception. It sounds fine and dandy, and terribly pastoral but does not really change anyone's heart and mind.
Amen to that
#421 also states in regard to contraception, "Such methods can even endanger the woman's health, have an abortifacient effect (=cause a very early abortion) and IN THE LONG RUN be detrimental to the couple's love life", which is clearly not consistent with Pope John Paul II's statement in the margin, "When couples have recourse to contraception...they manipulate and degrade human sexuality...and with it themselves and their married partner-by altering it's value of total self-giving" and thus from THE BEGINNING the use of contraception is detrimental to the married couple's love life.
Hello, I am a new commenter here. I have found many things in this YouCat to be seriously problematic. I have written two posts on my blog, one regarding the poor choice of people quoted in the YouCat, and another regarding the text regarding the sin of self abuse. The text which says, "The Church does not demonize masturbation, but she warns against trivializing it" seems to be seriously problematic. This looks like heresy to me, or am I missing something? It is saying that masturbation is not evil. To demonize means to mark or identify something as being evil. It is as if the YouCat text is making it equivalent to getting a credit card or something. What disturbs me the most however is that no one in the hierarchy of the Vatican has even mentioned anything on this mess. How can it be that no one notices any of this?
I do not believe that Pope Benedict XVI saw the copy of YOUCAT that went to print. Pages 224-225 of YOUCAT, along with question 65 on homosexuality serve to cause confusion and make it appear, once again, as if a homosexual inclination is immutable and should be accepted and affirmed. The illustration on page 224 is inappropriate and the quote in the margin from C.S. Lewis makes the erroneous claim that "the sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins..." in what is an obvious attempt to downplay the seriously grave nature of sins against Chastity. The statement on page 150makes the claim that in regards to The Sacrament of Marriage, the requirement of unity and indissolubility is directed in the first place against polygamy, with no mention of the requirement for a couple to be complementary in order for the couple to become one body, one spirit in Love, creating a new family. What is going on???...
Post a Comment